Talk:Chow variety

Request merger

I propose that Draft:Chow variety be merged and redirected to this article on the grounds of the overall description of the topic in draft space being effectively covered in this page. I cannot speak as to what should be merged over (and would prefer a Mathematics/Geometry specialist) to perform the appropriate splice overs, but effectively the draft page can be several subsections of this page. The goal is to get content into mainspace over unsearchable and meta-usage draftspace that has (until just recently) not been edited since 13 June 2015‎. Hasteur (talk) 11:02, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

The merger is probably a good idea in the future when the draftpage is more complete. Is there any reason the merger has to be rushed? -- Taku (talk) 14:13, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason why we could expect the draft page to ever be complete? 2 years and you haven't done a thing about it after being reminded multiple times. Hasteur (talk) 14:57, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again the question is why do you need to do so something about it. What is so inherently wrong with this draft page that needs to be fixed? I assumed it was not 2 years; what had become so wrong since the ? -- Taku (talk) 18:41, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you were reminded about the general state of your drafts over a year ago (WikiProject Mathematics talk page), and were reminded about them again 2 months ago (WikiProject Mathematics talk page) with no progress. After multiple attempts to AGF and work with you, it appears the stick is the only way to elicit improvement from these pages. Hasteur (talk) 18:57, 23 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Again you didn't answer my question. To repeat, (1) can we agree to do the merger when it is complete? (2) if not, why not? -- Taku (talk) 04:46, 24 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Hasteur: I take no answer as you agree that the merger is premature. -- Taku (talk) 13:24, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree. I have made my argument. You have made your counter argument. How about we both step back and let someone else provide a 3rd Opinon. Hasteur (talk) 13:40, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

If not, why not? I understand you want merger. But you haven't given a reason for why. I'm not even against the merger, only against then premature one. So again the question: what is it so urgent that we do merger now, rather later? -- Taku (talk) 13:52, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I wish to register that TakuyaMurata has now twice removed the Merge banner discussion from this talk page in direct violation of policy and process. At this point I claim Vandalism exception to Revert rules. Hasteur (talk) 14:10, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And proposing the merger without a reason is not disruption? I suppose if you don't follow the rules, I don't have to either. -- Taku (talk) 14:36, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There is a reason Takuya, you just choose not to listen. Hasteur (talk) 14:40, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not disagreeing with the merger; I'm asking for the reason why this has to happen right now as opposed to the time when the draft is more complete. That reason has not been given. -- Taku (talk) 16:00, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And I've asked above which you decided to ignore: Is there any reason why we could expect the draft page to ever be complete? You've not disagreed with a merger, but you want more time to improve the draft. You can do that already on the mainspace page. Waiting until the page is complete, then merging is only going to make the merge more difficult. Hasteur (talk) 16:08, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that would be more difficult. Two concepts are related but not identical. It is sometimes easier to develop the content separately and then merge them back. That seems to be the case here. -- Taku (talk) 21:12, 25 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]